42 Michael Van Dussen Bohemia in English Religious Controversy before the Henrician Reformation Michael Van Dussen (Columbus, Ohio) In the period between the Council of Constance (1414-18) and the Henrician Reformation (1530-38),1 religious controversialists in England referred to the Bohemian Revolution with striking regularity, suggesting a sustained interest in the situation there. This was a serious matter for the English, arousing the attention of such men as Thomas Netter, Reginald Pecock and Thomas Gas - coigne in the fifteenth century, and Thomas More, Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII in the sixteenth. At the beginning of this period, not long after the Coun - cil of Constance, Thomas Netter emphasized the role that Wyclif’s teachings had played in promoting heresy and revolution in Bohemia. Later in the fif - teenth century controversialists complicated the matter, claiming a variety of social ailments (e.g., clerical absenteeism and the individualized interpretation of Scripture) as the primary causes of the Bohemian troubles. By the sixteenth century, “Bohemia” had become synonymous with sedition and unchecked revolt in the context of English religious controversy. In the face of a new Lutheran predicament, sixteenth-century Catholic polemicists adapted to their new situation by drawing upon established polemical motifs concern - ing Bohemia – motifs originating in part from medieval controversy – refur - bishing them for their attacks on Luther. And whereas fifteenth-century polemi - cists seldom acknowledge a clear distinction between Wycliffism and Hussitism, many controversialists similarly blur the line between Hussitism and Lutheranism in the early modern period. Circumstances surrounding the Council of Constance and the Henrician Ref - ormation altered the content and agendas of English accounts of the Bohemi - ans in significant ways, bracketing off an intervening period of English polemic which had its own distinct characteristics. Before Constance, English interest in Bohemia was mainly restricted to Anne of Bohemia and her entourage – their presence in England in particular. The attention given to the queen had little to do with religious politics; with the exception of a few claims about Anne’s ver - nacular Bible reading practices, there is not much evidence to corroborate a link between the queen and religious controversy. The Council of Constance 1 For an excellent discussion concerning the difficulty of defining (and dating) “The Reformation” in England, see Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993) esp. 12-21. I use the dates for the Henrician political Reformation because during this period legislation was passed which (among other things) helped put an end to the strand of polemic which I discuss in this paper. Bohemia in English Religious Controversy 43 prompted a shift in focus to events going on inside Bohemia itself. This was made possible by the unprecedented exchange of texts and information from across Europe, and by the amount of attention which the Council (including an influential English contingent) paid to the Lollard-Hussite alliance. On the latter end of the period in question, Henry VIII’s establishment of an English Church separate from Rome – and the perceived need to legitimize such an autonomous, national church – created institutional support for a new kind of discussion about Bohemia, one which was later popularized by Protes - tant polemicists like John Foxe in his martyrology, the Actes and Monuments . I shall touch on this later English historiography of Bohemia in the conclusion, but a fuller discussion will have to wait for a separate occasion. 2 Between these two watershed events, English controversialists realized the gravity of the situation in Bohemia and its implications for England. This real - ization prompted an increased focus on Bohemian affairs, and from this new attention, Bohemia gained a reputation which remained associated with it for over a century in England. Whether that reputation amounts to an accurate picture – of life in Bohemia, of the nature of influence from Wyclif to Hus, or from Hus to Luther – is another matter. My point is that the reputation which Bohemia developed in the context of English religious controversy affected the course of that controversy, as well as having widespread political ramifications. As such, that reputation – multifarious as it was – deserves study in its own right. I. From Constance to Basel: Thomas Netter and international Wycliffism Fifteenth-century English churchmen watched with increasing concern as the situation in Hussite Bohemia worsened from a widening schism with the Church to a protracted revolution. The English were not unique in their con - cern, as can be gathered from the widespread attention given to the trials of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague during the Council of Constance, to the Hussite Wars which ensued shortly after, and eventually to the negotiations with the Bohemi - ans at the Council of Basel. But when it came to the Bohemians, the English were not just one concerned party like all the rest—for the English had also pro - duced John Wyclif and the Lollards, and the Lollards had a lot to do (particularly in contemporary estimation) with what was happening in Bohemia. This awkward association posed unique problems for the English in the fif - teenth century. While ecclesiastical and secular leaders from elsewhere in Europe were distressed by the revolution in Bohemia, continental leaders could 2 I am currently conducting research on sixteenth-century Protestant historiography of the Bohemian Revolution. 44 Michael Van Dussen take some comfort in the notion that at least their countrymen had not con - tributed to it so directly. 3 For the English there was no such consolation – a detail which others were keen to point out. And still worse, if English Lollards and Bohemian Hussites (often called “Wyclefistae”) had a common root in the teachings of John Wyclif, as it was generally assumed, then what would stop revolution from flaring up in England, too? After all, Sir John Oldcastle had attempted a rising in 1414, and churchmen like Thomas Netter were well aware of Oldcastle’s communication with the Bohemians (though I have seen no alle - gation that the Bohemians had anything to do with the 1414 rising). 4 A few decades earlier, the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 had met with more success. The Lollards were not clearly the prime movers of that revolt, but there was plenty of accusation to the contrary. And later in 1431, William Perkins ( alias Jack Sharpe) attempted still another Lollard rebellion. 5 In light of these circum - stances, something had to be done not only to preserve reputations – were the English doing enough to combat heresy? – but also to prevent Bohemian-style sedition on English soil. By the end of the 1420s, Thomas Netter ( c. 1375-1430), English Carmelite the - ologian and controversialist, had completed his vast work, the Doctrinale fidei ecclesiae .6 This scathing attack on the Lollards was so influential because it was both concrete and comprehensive; Netter did not merely undercut the logic of Wyclif’s doctrines as men like William Woodford had done, choosing instead to utilize Church tradition and history to establish precedents for his refutations. By virtue of this historical approach, his work remained influential well beyond the sixteenth century because it continued to be useful in countering Protes - tantism. 7 Nor was Netter’s tendency to situate his arguments in historical precedent limited to the distant past. Recent and ongoing events in Bohemia provided compelling illustrations of what Netter thought to be the logical extensions of Wycliffite doctrine. Like many of his contemporaries, Netter believed that the Hussite move - ment had its origins in John Wyclif’s teachings. Wycliffism, according to such 3 This was especially true before the Hussite connections with the Waldensians became more pro - nounced. And of course, the Austrian Augustinian canon Conrad Waldhauser was also influential in what would become the Bohemian reform movement. 4 See below, n. 9. 5 For discussion of these rebellions, see Margaret Aston, “Lollardy and Sedition, 1381-1431,” in Lol - lards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion (London, 1984) 1-47. 6 It is difficult to give exact dates for Netter’s composition of the three volumes of his Doctrinale . Most of the work must have been completed during the decade prior to Netter’s death (1430), though it is uncertain when he began writing. For more on the dating of the Doctrinale see Anne Hudson, The Premature Reformation (Oxford, 1988) 51. 7 For discussion, see Margaret Harvey, “The Diffusion of the Doctrinale of Thomas Netter in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Lesley Smith and Benedicta Ward, edd., Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (London, 1992) 281. Bohemia in English Religious Controversy 45 thinking, was a broad European heresy, not just an English anomaly. As such, calling attention to the scale of this heresy enhanced the significance of the arguments Netter was making against the English Lollards, his primary adver - saries. 8 A continental link suggested that Lollardy was not a contained insular movement and (equally important) neither was its Bohemian offshoot. That is the reason, I suggest, that Netter was so alarmed about events in Bohemia, and that he peppered his text with references to them: if the difference between the movements